1. This appeal by special leave from the decision of a learned single judge of the High Court of Kerala is disposed of on a short question of law.
2. The appellant is a tenant. The High Court had reversed the concurrent findings and the decisions of three courts below it and ordered eviction of the appellant.
3. The dispute relates to a portion of the ground floor of a three-storeyed building situated in one of the busiest commercial areas, Pazhavangadi of the city of Trivandrum, where the appellant bad been conducting a tea shop by name 'Sourashtra Hotel'. In the adjacent rooms on the ground floor, the landlord was conducting a business in textiles namely'Sarada Textiles'. The tenancy began on 12th June, 1965. The tenancy was taken by the husband of the appellant. The rent was Rs. 140/- per month. The husband of the appellant died. Thereafter the appellant had been conducting the business from there.
4. On or about 15th April, 1976, the respondent purchased a three storeyed building. The petition schedule premises is a portion of the ground floor of the said three storeyed building. It is the case of the appellant that there were seven rooms on the first floor of the said building out of which four were in the possession of the respondent and three rented out as aforesaid. The premises on the second floor were used by the respondent-landlord as a lodge. On 9th April, 1977, the respondent filed an application under S.17 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter called the) for permission to convert the non-residential building to a residential building. On 30th November, 1977, the Accommodation Controller rejected the said application.
5. On 2nd June 1978, the respondent filed the petition for eviction of the appellant on the ground of bona fide need of the premises in question for bis residence. Arrears of rent was also one of the grounds taken against the appellant. The tenant duly filed his objection. On 31st October, 1978, the Rent Control Court dismissed the respondent-landlord's petition for eviction. It was found that the landlord had other buildings in his own possession and therefore, no order of eviction could be passed by virtue of the first proviso to S.11(3) of the. The Rent Control Appellate Authority on or about 2nd July, 1979 dismissed the respondent-landlord's appeal.
6. On 28th March, 1980, the revision petition filed by the respondent was also dismissed by the District Court.
7. The High Court was moved by the respondent-landlord under S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
8. The husband of the appellant died on 8th May, 1985. She was therefore impleaded as the legal representative and she is conducting the business since the death of her husband.
9. By the order dated 20th August, 1985, the High Court by its impugned order has set aside all the orders of the courts below. The tenant, the appellant herein has come up in appeal to this Court under Art.136 of the Constitution.
10. Several questions were posed before us in this case, Inter alia, (i) whether the revision under S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure lies to the High Court from a revision order passed under S.20 of the said Act (ii) whether the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction under S.115 in setting aside the judgments and orders of the Courts below in ordering eviction of the appellant from the premises in question reversing the findings of facts (iii) whether eviction of a tenant from a non-residential building could be ordered for the user of the building for residence of the landlord, if the Accommodation Controller had refused permission under S.17 of the to convert the building from non-residential to residential (iv) where the Accommodation Controller refused the permission to convert the building from non-residential to residential, does the claim to the building by the landlord for a residential purpose become illegal and not recognised by law and whether the claim of the landlord can still be held to be bona fide (v) whether in ordering eviction the special reasons relied on by the High Court on a reappreciation of facts are borne out from the evidence in this case and whether the facts stated by the High Court constitute "special reasons" required under the first proviso to S.11(3) in ordering eviction and setting aside the judgments and orders of the courts below.
11. For the present purpose, it is relevant to refer to S.11(3) of the which provides as follows:
"11(3). A landlord may apply to the Rent Control Court for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building if he bona fide needs the building for his own occupation or for the occupation by any member of his family dependent on him:
Provided that the Rent Control Court shall not give any such direction if the landlord has another building of his own in his possession in the same city, town or village except where the Rent Control Court is satisfied that for special reasons, in any particular case it will be just and proper to do so:
Provided further that the Rent Control Court shall not give any direction to a tenant to put the landlord in possession, if such tenant is depending for his livelihood mainly on the income derived from any trade or business carried on in such building and there is no other suitable building available in the locality for such person to carry on such trade or business:
Provided further that no landlord whose right to recover possession arises under an instrument of transfer inter vivos shall be entitled to apply to be put in possession until the expiry of one year from the date of the instrument;
Provided further that if a landlord after obtaining an order to be put in possession transfers his rights in respect of the building to another person the transferee shall not be entitled to be put in possession unless he proves that he bona fide needs the building for his own occupation or for the occupation by any member of his family dependent on him."
12. In the view we have taken on the question that no revision lay to the High Court, it is not necessary to refer to other provisions of the or to the details of this case. It is, however, necessary to refer to S.18 and 20 of the which are as follows:
"18. Appeal:-(1)(a) The Government may, by general or special order notified in the Gazette, confer on such officers and authorities not below the rank of a Subordinate Judge the powers of appellate authorities for the purposes of this Act in such areas or in such classes of cases as may be specified in the order.
(b) Any person aggrieved by an order passed by the Rent Control Court may, within thirty days from the date of such order, prefer an appeal in writing to the appellate authority having jurisdiction. In computing the thirty days aforesaid, the time taken to obtain a certified copy of toe order appealed against shall be excluded.
(2) On such appeal being preferred, the appellate authority may order stay of further proceedings in the matter pending decision on the appeal.
(3) The appellate authority shall send for the records of the case from the Rent Control Court and after giving the parties an opportunity of being beard and, if necessary, after making such further inquiry as it thinks fit either directly or through the Rent Control Court, shall decide the appeal.
Explanation;- The appellate authority may, while confirming the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court, grant an extension of time to the tenant for putting the landlord in possession of the building.
(4) The appellate authority shall have all the powers of the Rent Control Court including the fixing of arrears of rent.
(5) The decision of the appellate authority, and subject to such decision, an order of the Rent Control Court shall be final and shall not be liable to be called in question in any Court of law, except as provided in S.20.
20. Revision:- (1) In cases where the appellate authority empowered under S.18 is a Subordinate Judge, the District Court, and in other cases the High Court may, at any time, on the application of any aggrieved party, call for and examine the records relating to any order passed or proceedings taken under this Act by such authority for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality, regularity, or propriety of such order or proceedings and may pass such order in reference thereto as it thinks fit.
(2) The costs of and incidental to all proceedings before the High Court or District Court under sub-s. (1) shall be in its discretion."
13. It has further to be borne in mind that the in question was an Act to regulate the leasing of buildings and to control the rent of such buildings in the State of Kerala.
14. It was contended by Shri Poti, learned counsel for the appellant, that no revision lay to the High Court. He submitted that S.18(5) read with S.20 of the has completely ousted the High Court's jurisdiction to interfere in this matter under S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
15. Under the scheme of the it appears that a landlord who wants eviction of his tenant has to move for eviction and the case has to be disposed of by the Rent Control Court. That is provided by sub-s. (2) of S.11 of the. From the Rent Control Court, an appeal lies to the Appellate Authority under the conditions laid down under sub-s. (1)(b) of S.18 of the. From the Appellate Authority a revision in certain circumstances lies in cases where the appellate authority is a Subordinate Judge to the District Court and in other cases to the High Court. In this case as mentioned hereinbefore the appeal lay from Rent Control Court to the appellate authority who was the Subordinate Judge and therefore the revision lay to the District Judge. Indeed it is indisputed that the respondent has in this case taken resort to all these provisions. After the dismissal of the revision by the District Judge from the appellate decision of the Subordinate Judge who confirmed the order of the Rent Controller, the respondent-landlord chose again to go before the High Court under S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The question is, can he have a second revision to the High Court Shri Poti submitted that he cannot. We are of the opinion that he is right. This position is clear if sub-s. (5) of S.18 of the is read in conjunction with S.20 of the. Sub-s. (5) of S.18, as we have noted hereinbefore, clearly stipulates that the decision of the appellate, authority and subject to such decision, an order of the Rent Controller 'shall be final and 'shall not be liable to be called in question in any court of law', except as provided in S.20. By S.20, a revision is provided where the appellate authority is Subordinate Judge to the District Judge and in other cases, that is to say, where the appellate authority is District Judge, to the High Court. The ambits of revisional powers are well-settled and need not be re-stated. It is inconceivable to have two revisions. The scheme of the does not warrant such a conclusion. In our opinion, the expression 'shall be final' in the means what it says.
16. In Kydd v. Watch Committee of City of Liverpool, (1908) Appeal Cases 327 at 331-332, Lord Lore burn L C., construing the provisions of S.11 of the Police Act, 1890 of England which provided an appeal to quarter sessions as to the amount of a constable's pension, and also stipulated that the Court shall make an order which would be just and final observed:
"Where it says, speaking of such an order, that it is to be final, I think it means there is to be an end of the business at quarter sessions ".
The said observation could most appropriately be applied to the expression used by the legislature in sub-s. (5) of S.18 of the in question. It means what it says that subject to the decision of the appellate authority, the decision of the Rent Controller shall be final and could only be questioned in the manner provided in S.20 and in no other manner. The intention of the legislature in enacting the said Act is clear and manifest from this section and the scheme of the, that is to say, to regulate the leasing of buildings and to control the rent of such buildings and to provide a tier of courts by themselves for eviction of the rented premises. This is writ large in the different provisions of the. This Court, referring to the aforesaid observations of Lord Lore burn, L. C. in the case of South Asia Industries Private Ltd. v. S. B. Sarup Singh and Others (1965) 2 SCR 756 observed at page 766 of the report that the expression "final" prima facie meant that an order passed on appeal under the was conclusive and no further appeal lay. This Court was construing S.39 and 43 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 and the effect thereof in the context of Letters Patent Appeal. There S.39 and 43 provided as follows:
"S.39. (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-s. (2), an appeal shall lie to the High Court from an order made by the Tribunal within sixty days from the date of such order.
(2) No appeal shall lie under sub-s. (1), unless the appeal involves some substantial question of law.
S. 43. Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, every order made by the Controller or an order passed on appeal under this Act shall be final and shall not be called in question in any original suit application or execution proceedings."
17. This Court observed at page 766 that a combined reading of the said two sections made it clear that subject to the right of appeal to the High Court on a substantial question of law, the order passed by the Controller or an order passed on appeal was final and could not be called in question in any original suit, application or execution proceeding. The use of the expression "shall be final" will have to be understood in the proper context and keeping in view the purpose of the different sections.
18. On behalf of the respondent, Shri Iyer relied on a decision of the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court on which the High Court had rested its decision in Ouseph Vareed v. Mary 1968 KLT 583 [LQ/SC/1986/511 ;] in repelling the submission by the appellant on this aspect. There the High Court was concerned with the identical Act. Balakrishna Eradi, J., speaking for the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court on this contention after referring to several decisions observed at pages 588-589 of the report as follows:
"The contention of the respondent that the decision of the District Court rendered under S.20(1) is not amenable to revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under S.115 of the Civil Procedure Code is based mainly on the provision for finality contained in S.18(5) of the. That Section is in the following terms:
"The decision of the appellate authority, and subject to such decision, an order of the Rent Control Court shall be final and shall not be liable to be called in question in any Court of law, except as provided in S: 20."
What is to be noted here is that there is nothing in the Section which says that the decision of the revisional authority under S.20 shall be final and shall not be called in question in any higher court"
19. The learned judge referred to the decision of the Judicial Committee in the case of Maung Ba Thaw and another Insolvents v. Ma Pin AIR 1934 PC 81 [LQ/PC/1934/2] . The learned judge also referred to a decision of this Court in South Asia Industries (P) Ltd. v. S. B. Sarup Singh and Ors. (supra). The learned judge concluded that so long as there was no specific provision in the statute making the determination by the District Court final and excluding the supervisory power of the High Court under S.113 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it had to be held that the decision rendered by the District Court under S.20(1) of the being a decision of a court subordinate to the High Court to which an appeal lay to the High Court was liable to be revised by the High Court under S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In that view of the matter, the Full Bench rejected the view of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in Kurien v. Chacko 1960 KLT. 1248. With respect, we are unable to sustain the view of the Full Bench of the High Court on this aspect of the matter. In our opinion, the Full Bench misconstrued the provisions of sub-s. (5) of S.18 of the. Sub-s. (5) of S.18 clearly states that such decision of the appellate authority as mentioned in S.18 of the shall not be liable to be questioned except in the manner under S.20 of the. There was thereby an implied prohibition or exclusion of a second revision under S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure to the High Court when a revision has been provided under S.20 of the in question. When S.18(5) of the specifically states that "shall not be liable to be called in question in any Court of law" except in the manner provided under S.20, it cannot be said that the High Court which is a court of law and which is a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure under S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure could revise an order once again after revision under S.20 of the. That would mean there would be a trial by four courts, that would be repugnant to the scheme manifest in the different sections of the in question. Public policy or public interest demands curtailment of law's delay and justice demands finality with quick disposal of case. The language of the provisions of S.18(5) read with S.20 inhibits further revision. The courts must so construe.
20. Judicial Committee in Maung Ba Thaw v. Ma Pin (supra) was dealing with the Provincial Insolvency Act and the Judicial Committee observed that when a right of appeal was given to any of the ordinary courts of the country, the procedure, orders and decrees of that Court would be governed by the ordinary rules of the Civil Procedure Code, and therefore an appeal to Privy Council was maintainable from the decision of the High Court. Here in the instant case the right of appeal has been given under the not to any ordinary court of the country under the Code of Civil Procedure but to the courts enumerated under the Rent Act. In that view of the matter, the ratio of that decision cannot be applied in aid of the submission for respondent in this case.
21. Indeed this view, in our opinion, is concluded by the decision of this Court in the case of Vishesh Kumar v. Shanti Prasad (1980) 3 SCR 32 [LQ/SC/1980/119] , where this Court was concerned with S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the amendments made therein which superseded the bifurcation of the revisional jurisdiction between the High Court and the District Court. The High Court possessed revisional jurisdiction from an order of District Judge disposing of revision petition. This Court observed that S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure conferred on the High Court of a State power to remove any jurisdictional error committed by a subordinate court in cases where the error could not be corrected by resort to Us appellate jurisdiction. Thereafter tracing the history of the amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure by Amendment Act, 1976, this Court observed that the amendment superseded the scheme of bifurcation of revisional jurisdiction with effect from 1st February, 1977. S.25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act was amended from time to time in its application to the State of U.P. The two questions that fell for consideration before this Court were (i) whether the High Court possessed the revisional jurisdiction under S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure in respect of an order of the District Court under S.115 disposing of a revision petition and (ii) whether the High Court possessed revisional jurisdiction under S.115 of CPC against an order of District Court under S.25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. It was held that the High Court was not vested with that revisional jurisdiction. This Court was of the view that an order under S.25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act was not of a court of District Court and was not amenable to revisional jurisdiction. This Court further observed that an examination of the several provisions of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act indicated that it was a self-sufficient code so far as the enquiry covered by that Act was concerned. All the indications in the were to that effect. After analysing the scheme and referring to the decisions of this Court, this Court held that the jurisdiction of the High Court under S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure was excluded.
22. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court was in error and the High Court in the instant case had no jurisdiction to interfere in this matter under S.115 of CPC.
23. It was urged that in case we are of the opinion that a revision under S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not lie, the case should be remitted to the High Court for consideration as a petition under Art.227 of the Constitution. We are unable to accede. A petition under Art.227 of the Constitution is different from revision under S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The two procedures are not interchangeable though there are some common features. It must, however, be emphasised that we are not dealing in this appeal with the constitutional powers of the High Court under Art.227 of the Constitution nor are we concerned with the powers of the High Court regulating appeals under the Kerala High Court Act, 1958. We are concerned in this case whether the High Court, in view of the scheme of the, had jurisdiction to interfere under S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. We reiterate that to vest the High Court with any such jurisdiction would be contrary to the scheme of the, would be contrary to the public policy, and would be contrary to the legislative intent as manifest from the different sections of the.
24. In that view of the matter, the appeal must be allowed on that ground alone and it is not necessary for us to refer to the other grounds. We must necessarily overrule the decision of the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court referred to hereinbefore.
25. Before we conclude, we must, however, note that Shri Poti appearing for the tenant has conceded that rent should be increased to Rs. 500/ per month for the premises in question, as the existing rent is too low. The appeal is accordingly allowed and we direct on the concession of Shri Poti that rent would be Rs. 500/ per month from this date. The judgment and order of the High Court are set aside.
26. In the facts and circumstances of this case, there will be no order as to costs.
